RESUMO
Motivational climate is known to relate to individual behaviors, emotions, and thoughts. Hedonic or subjective well-being includes self-assessed positive affect (i.e., pleasant affect, moods, and emotions), negative affect (i.e., unpleasant affect, moods, and emotions), and life or domain-specific satisfaction. The aim of this review was to quantify the relationships between task and ego motivational climate scales and measures representing hedonic well-being with sports participants. Potential moderators of the motivational climate and hedonic well-being were examined. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID CRD42023470462, registered 28 October 2023). From five relevant databases, one relevant review, and hand searching, 82 articles totaling 26,378 participants (46.3% female) met the inclusion criteria. The articles spanned publication dates from 1993 to 2023, representing 18 countries, various team and individual sports, and athletes competing in elite (e.g., Olympic) to grassroot (e.g., club sport) competitions. To meta-analyze the motivational climate and hedonic well-being relationships, the random-effects model was used. For the moderation analyses, the mixed-effects model was used. The task or mastery climate relationships were medium in magnitude with positive affect and satisfaction and small with negative affect. The ego or performance climate relationships were small in magnitude for positive affect, negative affect, and satisfaction. Evidence of bias existed in the motivational climate and hedonic well-being relationships. For moderation analyses, athlete level (i.e., elite vs. non-elite) moderated (p < 0.05) the task (elite, r = 0.23; non-elite, r = 0.34) and ego motivational climate (elite, r = -0.02; non-elite, r = -0.13) and positive affect and satisfaction combined relationships. In conclusion, the motivational climate and hedonic well-being relationships were stronger for the task climate than for the ego climate. The finding that elite athlete correlations appeared dampened is important for future research. Even with the damped relationships, practitioners, from the Olympics to local clubs, should ensure the promotion of the task climate to maximize positive affect and satisfactions in and around the sport experience.
RESUMO
The relationship between self-efficacy and performance exclusively within the sports environment is yet to be quantified. Hence, we meta-analysed this relationship by following the PRISMA guidelines. Two previous meta-analyses, five relevant databases, and Google Scholar were searched. Forty-four articles published between 1983 and 2021 met the inclusion criteria, with 55 independent samples. Comprehensive meta-analysis software version 4 was used for all meta-analytic calculations using a random-effects model to calculate the mean effect size, and a mixed-effects model was used for moderation analyses. The mean pre-event self-efficacy and performance effect size was r = 0.31 (95% CI 0.22, 0.40). For moderation analyses, notable mean differences (p values ≥ 0.08) resulted for concordance [concordant (r = 0.37), nonconcordant (r = 0.22)], sports skill [closed (r = 0.37), open (r = 0.23)], and athlete level [elite (r = 0.40), sub-elite (r = 0.28)]. The true effect prediction interval ranged from negative (i.e., self-efficacy impairing performance) to positive (self-efficacy improving performance) for all moderator variables except self-referenced vs. other-referenced performance. In conclusion, the relationship between pre-event self-efficacy and performance is positive and moderate in magnitude, although with prediction intervals ranging from debilitating to facilitating performance. Researchers and practitioners should note that high athlete-rated self-efficacy might not always improve impending competitive sports performance.
RESUMO
Achievement goal theory has been a dominant motivation framework since the 1980s. The 3 × 2 achievement goal framework emerged in the literature in 2011. We aimed to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines of the 3 × 2 achievement goal research in education, sport, and occupation settings. We retrieved articles from searching EBSCOhost and Google Scholar platforms. Eligible articles contained the 3 × 2 achievement goal in education, sport, or occupation, were published in a peer-reviewed journal, and provided mean data or correlate data. We tested hypotheses concerned with (1) the overall pattern of achievement goal endorsement, (2) achievement goal differences by domain (education, sport) and compulsory nature of the domains or sub-domains, and (3) achievement goal relationships with correlates (e.g., learning strategies, motivations, performance). After screening, 56 articles met all inclusion criteria, providing 58 samples across education (n = 44), sport (n = 10), and occupation (n = 4) settings with 35,031 unique participants from 15 countries. Participants endorsed the task- and self-approach goals more than the counterpart avoidance goals, other-avoidance goals more than other-approach goals, and the intercorrelations and reliability coefficients were acceptable. Minimal impact results from examining within and across study bias statistics. Of importance, the domain (i.e., education, sport) and the compulsory nature of the domain or sub-domains (i.e., primary-secondary education, sport) moderated goal endorsement (group mixed-effects p < 0.05, g values medium to very large). These groupings also moderated the other goal differences. Concerning our correlates analyses, most meta-analyzed correlations among the achievement goals and correlates were small in meaningfulness with the largest correlations (0.30-0.42) between the approach goals merged and the task- and self-approach goals and facilitative learning strategies and desired motivations. In conclusion, the 3 × 2 achievement goals literature is diverse. Furthering the study and application of this model requires overcoming inherent limitations (i.e., consistent response scale sets), teasing out differences between the task- and self-goals, measuring performance outcomes, and cross-cultural collaborations.
RESUMO
Self-confidence is a common research topic, and most applied textbooks include interventions designed to enhance athlete confidence. Our purpose was to quantify the self-confidence and sport performance literature using meta-analytic techniques. We also examined potential risk of bias indicators, and the moderation effects of study quality, sport characteristics, timing of confidence measurement, and individual differences among participants. Following a review of two past meta-analyses, a systematic search of APA PsycArticles, ERIC, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsychINFO, and SPORTDiscus within the EBSCOhost platform, and some hand searching, 41 articles published between 1986 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria. Collectively, the included studies investigated 3711 athletes from 15 countries across 24 sports. The overall random effects estimate of the relationship (expressed as r) between self-confidence and performance was 0.25 (95% CI 0.19, 0.30), with little evidence of publication bias. The summed total risk of the individual study bias score did not moderate the confidence-performance relationship, whereas significant moderator effects emerged for individual sports (0.29) compared with team sports (0.14), objective (0.29) compared to subjective (0.14) performance measures, and 100% male (0.35) compared to 100% female (0.07) samples. In conclusion, the confidence-performance relationship is small in magnitude, nearly free of bias, and moderated by sport type, performance objectivity, and athlete sex.